It's a poor article taking a single example and the worst one at that , a game that isnt even trying to offer a real narrative but just set you free in a lego world where your actions dont even matter , you can just do whatever you want , it doesnt even pretend it has an impact .

Where are the parts where he'd make the same points and critiques with games like Infamous , Yakuza , GTA , Red Dead redemption , Assassin Creed , Sleeping dogs and many others

I like sandbox games but sometimes they can be a bit distracting if they are fully open from the start.

Skyrim for instance.. I love it, played for nearly 100 hours but honestly i look back on the first 20 and think what a waste of time. Because i could do anything, go anywhere i ended up just messing around and not really doing anything.

I like a bit of structure to it. Like on gta they always have some bs reason why you can't cross a bridge until later but it means you get to learn each islands layouts and appreciate them more.

Most open world games to me are large worlds filled with emptiness. Repetitive and monotonous affairs that bores me to death. I own Farcry3, Assn Creed and other open world games and the feeling was the same across all those games. The only one that was open world that didnt give me that repetitious and empty feeling was Infamous 2.

Buy a Rockstar open world game (not LA Noire) or try Sleeping Dogs.......Also the thing with open world games is they are virtual sandboxes, you have to use what they give you to craft a fun time in the world (just Cause2) ....it just takes imagination

But hey open world games aren't for everyone some people need much more linear games, it's easy to get overwhelmed by some open worlds variety, where its so much to do that you easily lose sight of what to do (AC3/NFS:MW)

So I'm paying $60 for simply a set of game mechanics? Imagination is free, I shouldn't have to do the writer's job for them if I'm paying them.

The majority (not all mind you) of open world games side-quests or exploration just result in killing X number of the game's standard mooks, or driving from point A to point B in under X seconds. Good luck imagining compelling reasons for all of those.

It's simple really, some gamers like to be told how they should enjoy their gaming experience and others like to do as they please.

Most open world games allow unlimited freedom while linear games offer a straight focused story.

"The majority (not all mind you) of open world games side-quests or exploration just result in killing X number of the game's standard mooks, or driving from point A to point B in under X seconds"

The same can be said for linear games as well, even more so. The entire game consists of clearing one area after another, usually behind cover. Even worse most of the "driving" sections of linear games are on rails.

Not putting down linear games at all though, UC series has some of the best experiences, but leaves little desire to replay the same straight line SP unless you're going for trophies.

I like Open World games, because it feels more real to me then games with invisible walls and a set path that you have to follow. However I also like a good story in my games, and often this is lacking in Open World.

For myself a perfect game would mesh brilliant storytelling with Open World, basically allowing you to take multiple paths and make multiple choices which would effect the outcome of an amazing epic story. I will admit that I don't think I have ever seen it done 100% successfully, but I still like Open World games for what they are.